Zone1 Should Social Security and Medicare Be Tied to Contributing to Society’s Future Workforce

[The Irish Ram]

So the greying of America can't assume enough worker ants to support it's elders .......i'm starting to miss >>>
View attachment 1199230
their entire mentality was self sufficiency ......

~S~

Thing is, the elders don't need the younger to subsidize Social Security. The elders already put that money in a safe account so when they needed it, it would be there. The gov. promised. And then they stole every dime and left IOU's in place of the money.
When it came time for the elders to get their money back, the gov. decided to steal the younger's money to make good on all the IOUs. Meager amounts monthly to the elders, and no amounts for the youngers is the result. Next Democrat in office will scream that the youngers are an entitlement group, and will end Social Security.

 

[sparky]

but everything to do with the theft and outright abuse that has endangered entitled qualified seniors that paid into the system over 40+year's of their lives expecting a return on their investment.

yes, and i'd be one among them Beagle....

that has endangered entitled qualified seniors that paid into the system over 40+year's of their lives

does it make me some sort of socialist to demand what i've been paying for???

all sorts of excuses and BS formulas in hopes to hide what has taken place against the citizens of this country is shameful.

but they're so good at it......

The up and coming generation's are the one's who should be outraged

they should, but methinks they're really not all that concerned.......think back to when we were young & invisible , we couldn't conceive of being old and vulnerable Beagle.....~S~

 

[sparky]

Thing is, the elders don't need the younger to subsidize Social Security. The elders already put that money in a safe account so when they needed it, it would be there. The gov. promised. And then they stole every dime and left IOU's in place of the money.
When it came time for the elders to get their money back, the gov. decided to steal the younger's money to make good on all the IOUs. Meager amounts monthly to the elders, and no amounts for the youngers is the result. Next Democrat in office will scream that the youngers are an entitlement group, and will end Social Security.

spot on Ram......~S~

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Thing is, the elders don't need the younger to subsidize Social Security. The elders already put that money in a safe account so when they needed it, it would be there. The gov. promised. And then they stole every dime and left IOU's in place of the money.
When it came time for the elders to get their money back, the gov. decided to steal the younger's money to make good on all the IOUs. Meager amounts monthly to the elders, and no amounts for the youngers is the result. Next Democrat in office will scream that the youngers are an entitlement group, and will end Social Security.

It's been that way since 1939. Nobody stole anything.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

spot on Ram......~S~

Except she is wrong. The loans were made to pay bills since 1939.

 

[sparky]

The loans were made to pay bills since 1939.

well my bad the Admiral......do you feel inspired enough to educate us further?

~S~

 

[beagle9]

yes, and i'd be one among them Beagle....

does it make me some sort of socialist to demand what i've been paying for???

but they're so good at it......

they should, but methinks they're really not all that concerned.......think back to when we were young & invisible , we couldn't conceive of being old and vulnerable Beagle.....~S~

Good reply brother... Thanks

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

well my bad the Admiral......do you feel inspired enough to educate us further?

~S~

Google is your friend. That's how I looked up the year.

 

[beagle9]

Google is your friend. That's how I looked up the year.

Google is not your friend, because even it is controlled by forces that are biased and left leaning. Attempting to muddy the waters is a tactic used when something like biased opinions regarding history are tried to be protected.

We see it all the time when testing Google on their history lessons, written or gathered opinions that are cherry picked leaving out information that might completely change the information gathered for the reader. Just ask it certain questions that you know the answers on, but certain forces want to be skewed and even exempt of information expected.

 

[The Irish Ram]

AI
Congress started officially "using" (borrowing from) Social Security trust funds as a temporary fix in 1981-82, authorized by legislation for inter-fund loans, but the major shift came with the 1983 Amendments that made Social Security benefits taxable for higher earners (effective 1984) and put the funds "off-budget" for better tracking, treating them as separate accounts with their own revenues and expenditures, a system solidified by 1993.

 

[Lisa558]

Is OP saying that the 20% or so of women who have no children, together with at least another 30% who have 2 or fewer, don’t get SS and Medicare when they are elderly but still have to contribute for 45 years, even though they’ll never see a penny back?

Or is he saying half of all women are on our own but of course won’t be forced to contribute to programs we will be excluded from? If this is the case, I’m fine with it - my SS and Medicare payments over my career would have been $2 million if I could have invested them Instead.

 

[Lisa558]

Just did a calculation: the $2 million I would have had for retirement if I wasn’t forced to contribute to SS and a Medicare could be moved into an immediate annuity at age 65, and pay out $13,000 per month for the rest of my life.

That’s plenty to forgo the $3,000 I get in SS, and I could afford to buy the best shiny platinum health insurance available - and still be ahead.